[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL traitor !
From: |
Thufir Hawat |
Subject: |
Re: GPL traitor ! |
Date: |
Mon, 11 May 2009 09:50:39 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:57:50 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:52:41 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> They would clearly like not to have copyright apply to this situation,
>>> since then they would not need the GPL to provide its copyleft
>>> mechanism there.
>>
>> Without copyright the GPL is pointless.
>
> Without an attack, a defense is pointless.
Nope. The GPL rests upon the existence of copyright law, ie: without
copyright law there can be no GPL. A burglar alarm is a defense without
an attack, it's a precaution. Or, would you say that a burglar alarm is
pointless because no burglar is lurking about? Or, a password on
computer? etc, etc.
-Thufir
- Re: GPL traitor !, (continued)
- Re: GPL traitor !, Erik Funkenbusch, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Doctor Smith, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/08
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Thufir Hawat, 2009/05/10
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hadron, 2009/05/10
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/09
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/10
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hadron, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/05/12
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/05/11
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/05/11